Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 239 (HP)

H. P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD v. JAGAT SING

2009-03-30

RAJIV SHARMA

body2009
JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, Judge.:-This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan in Civil Appeal No. 94-CA/13 of 1997 dated 20.4.1998. 2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this regular second appeal are that in the morning of 12th June, 1992, the respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) went to the land of his father. He came in contact with stay wire of electric pole which was supporting high tension and low tension lines. He suffered burn injuries on his hands, legs, abdomen and other parts of the body. He became unconscious and was taken to a place at Ichhari in Dehradun District. Thereafter, he was taken to Civil Hospital, Paonta Sahib. He remained under treatment for about one month. He claimed a total sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation against the appellants-defendants (hereinafter referred to as the defendants for convenience sake). The suit was contested by the defendants. The defendants clarified that in the night intervening 11th and 12th June, 1992 due to heavy storm one pole of high tension line got broken in the village and top portion of it fell on the pole of L.T. line which was very close to high tension line. It was, thus, claimed that the accident took place due to an act of God. The learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Paonta Sahib dismissed the suit. The plaintiff preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan. The learned District Judge allowed the appeal on 20.4.1998. This regular second appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law: “Whether the Courts below have correctly read and inferred the oral and documentary evidence on record to come to the conclusion that respondent had suffered burn injuries due to negligence of the defendants and he is entitled to compensation amount of Rs. 50,000/- as awarded?” 3. Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate has strenuously argued that the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court is not sustainable. He has supported the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. 4. Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Advocate has supported the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully. 6. He has supported the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. 4. Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Advocate has supported the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully. 6. It has come in the statement of the plaintiff that he suffered burn injuries in the morning of 12th June, 1992. He came in contact with stay wire of electrical pole which was charged by load of current. This statement has not been disputed by the defendants. The Assistant Engineer (DW-2) has admitted that some person had suffered injuries by coming into contact with stay wire of electrical pole. This position is clearly mentioned in the site plan Ext. DW-2/A. Shri Gurdeep Singh had visited the site on the date of accident. He also met plaintiff Jagat Singh in Civil Hospital, Paonta Sahib. It was amply proved by the plaintiff that he suffered burn injuries by coming into contact with stay wire of electrical pole. DW-2 has also admitted that due to storm and rains one wire of the electrical high tension line fell on the stay wire supporting the pole of low tension line. In this situation, no negligence could be attributed to the plaintiff. There was no reason as to why the plaintiff would have touched the electrical wire himself. It was the duty cast upon the defendants to ensure to maintain the poles and lines in proper condition. The occurrence of wind and storm is not unusual and uncommon. The poles must be installed in such a manner that they should be able to withstand any storm, rains or winds. It was only due to improper and faulty maintenance of high tension wires by the defendants that the accident has taken place. The learned First Appellate Court has correctly awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as cost of treatment including the cost of attendant and transportation. A sum of Rs. 20,000/- awarded by the learned First Appellate Court for pains, shock and sufferings and loss of amenities of life need not be interfered with by this Court. The plaintiff was bound to remain away from his work at least for a period of one year since he remained admitted in the hospital for two months. The learned First Appellate Court has awarded a sum of Rs. The plaintiff was bound to remain away from his work at least for a period of one year since he remained admitted in the hospital for two months. The learned First Appellate Court has awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- for loss of earnings and earning capacity. The reasoning adopted by the learned First Appellate Court to award this sum of Rs. 20,000/- is also liable to be up held. 7. Accordingly, there is no merit in this regular second appeal and the same is dismissed. No costs.